The controversial graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral

[RevUlsion]

There is outrage on social media about graffiti in Canterbury Cathedral. More accurately, an art exhibition in the style of graffiti. Many see it as desecrating a holy building.

Here's a lively article defending the exhibition. Lots to ponder: about art, 'sacred' buildings, and whether some language is off-limits when it comes to God.

www.flaneurnotes.com/post/let-us-spray

I like it and I think Jesus would too.

If Canterbury Cathedral are hosting the exhibition then the diocese would have authorised it so what’s the problem?

I think it's awful but not surprised.

I think some people have missed the fact that it's a temporary exhibition, and the graffiti will be peeled off when it's over, it hasn't been actually sprayed onto the building.

I would understand the outrage if they'd actually spray painted a cathedral, but I'm a bit baffled at why people are so upset at a temporary art exhibition designed to provoke discussion.

I don't see the problem. There's no actual spray painting. And faith should always be questioned, just like everything else. Excessive devotion to 'tradition ' leads to stagnation of the spirit.

It's a non-issue.

It's not actually sprayed on - it's decals that will be peeled off when the exhibition is over. The building isn't being damaged by it.

There is nothing even remotely offensive about the words used in the artwork. It has been approved by the diocese and there is a religious theme to it that encourages visitors to think about their own relationship (or lack of relationship) with God (if they believe in one).

Of course not everyone will like that style of art, but so what? Nothing will ever be visually appealing to everyone.

It's just ugly isn't it?

No need to be all pseudo-intellectual about it. It's ugly.

Completely agree, and the article I linked to says the same.

Interesting that of the replies on here so far, most have been: 'Meh, what's the problem? It's thought-provoking, and in any case it's just temporary stickers'. And a few have been: 'It's ugly, but not a big deal'.

A contrast with the fury on social media, where some people are reacting if it's the ultimate act of desecration, and marks the end of the Church of England.

Art doesn't have to be beautiful, and in any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People thought Monet's Waterlilies were ugly when they were first painted.

I don't like it and I don't find it very effective- I think there't a strain in the CoE that thinks they can make the Church more popular and relevant by making it more like the rest of modern life, when in fact what people want is something unlike everything else, something transcendent. It's also very "how do you do, fellow kids?"- patronising and embarrassing.

However I also don't really understand why it's caused such a kerfuffle online. Someone has tried something new, it's not very good but there you go. Soon the stickers will be removed. From some of the reactions you'd think they had knocked the cathedral down and replaced it with an M&Ms World.

Should add that you can find real graffiti in churches everywhere- stone masons marks etc dating back hundreds of years. I absolutely love these and find them both moving and thought-provoking.

The stickers are just rubbish really- not challenging, not interesting, not actually trying to engage with anyone new but just with a caricature of youth. "How can we get young people engaged with the church?" "How about the same old messages but in a graffiti font? Kids love that." "Great, let's all clock off early."

It’s just people who suddenly identify as Christians behaving in a very unchristian way!

I’m an atheist and a graffiti lover ( not just random tags , but talented creations) , however even though these are only peel off stickers , I find them rather jarring and not in a thought provoking way . Lots of cathedrals have encompassed modern art displays in recent years and I would say this is probably the worst I have seen .

Aesthetically it’s jarring, I agree with you on that.

Not in a good way just a bit weak.

To me it seems to be an ironic metaphor for what the C of E has done to the Anglican faith, to the extent that now a lot of the rest of the world won’t recognise the A of C as their leader.

Nobody said art has to be anything. I certainly didn't.

I just said that it's ugly. People are allowed to dislike looking at something that's ugly, it's quite an instinctive reaction to something that is ugly, it's pretty much what ugly means.

People who designed and built cathedrals, often hundreds of years ago, invested a lot of time and labour making them beautiful. They incorporated various geometrical symmetries that inspire delight and wonder.

They didn't "have" to. But I'm really glad they did, and I appreciate it.

I do not appreciate deliberate ugliness. And I refute the (pretentious, pseudo-pious) implication that that makes me unintellectual

I think it’s abhorrent and pretentious.
The sort of thing a stroppy teenager would produce for a trendy church youth group.

Very jarring and inappropriate for the building.

In what way is it thought provoking? Can someone please explain their thoughts that have been inspired by these graffiti stickers?

Sometime in the last 50-100 years, "art" became something to be "understood" by exclusive, pretentious, in-the-know types who pretend to admire ugliness because they understand it, or something.

Before that, it was pretty much universally accepted that visual art was for looking at, and therefore if it is ugly, you are basically being rude to the onlooker, regardless of the "message" behind it.

These days, a certain minority feel superior when others say "I don't like that, it's ugly", they can respond "Aha, you are ignorant, it is meaningful, I am cleverer than you because I claim to like what is ugly". But really they are actually seeing less, not more.

So I don't subscribe to that exclusivist view of art. I think that art can be both meaningful and beautiful, and that when it is beautiful, more people can access its meaning. And this doesn't make me ignorant, any more than the boy pointing out the emperor is naked.

'It's ugly' is just an opinion. People are allowed to express theirs, but they carry little weight when it comes to art.

Yep, it's my opinion that this graffiti in the cathedral is ugly. I never implied otherwise. - Mumoftwo's opinion

It’s ugly. Buildings that are abandoned are covered in graffiti—there’s a metaphor in here somewhere …

How is the opinion of the onlooker irrelevant when it comes to visual art?! It is the only thing that matters.

What is the point of visual art except the thoughts it provokes when looked at?

This is what I mean by pseudo intellectuals telling us what to think, seeing less, not more.

Of course opinions carry weight. I agree what a bizarre statement.

I see Elon Musk has weighed in. It is just US rightwing Twitter culture wars rubbish. I doubt any of the keyboard warriors wittering about it have seen it, or indeed seen the inside of a church recently. They just enjoy frothing.